If someone kills himself or herself, ordinarily that means they go to Hell. If someone struggles with very severe depression, some moral theologians consider that this may alleviate the responsibility, and therefore excuse someone who would otherwise have gone to Hell for suicide, provided obviously that the other things in that life allow for final salvation. In this case, she seems to have been victim of idolising South Korean society. "Excuse me, I beg forgiveness of ...." her list of people she apologised to reminds of "so long, farewell" in Sound of Music. Insert the line "to you and you and you" ... but that's about as much as is common with a very beloved play and film based on the von Trapp family singers. The rest is the difference from daydream to nightmare.
Oidipous who gouged his own eyes was a victim. He was a victim of Apollo Delphicus. A certain Edmond Kirsch pretended that every Christian around a certain conference is a total sceptic about Delphic Apollo. I'm not. I think he was mentioned in Homer and in the Apocalypse with one letter more, as Apollyon. Christians consider him as "A king, the angel of the bottomless pit" ... and Homeric descriptions of Apollo are not limited to this synonym of Abaddon, they also include "fly god" which makes another Hebrew translation of his name Beelzebub. So, could Oidipous go to Heaven finally (down to Sheol first, and to Heaven later when Christ came)? No, not very probably. He had the fault of worshipping and believing Apollo. A certain actress that of worshipping the standards of South Korean Society. The one person in Greek tragedy I have hope for is Hippolytus, especially if the worship of Artemis is just a code for his resolve of chastity (whether it was one up to marriage or lifelong). What we know of him from Euripides is, he refused to worship Aphrodite and it was his father who was the gigantic (and human sacrificing) worshipper of Poseidon. If some Hebrew servant woman converted him, as one converted Naaman, his martyrdom may have washed off the leprosy of Paganism. It was shared by St. Hippolytus of Rome.
I think someone put the video into my feed of suggestions at youtube to send me a message. Maybe even a double message. I'll decode both versions, and answer. I'll try to stay out of that actresses death. But I can't stay out of what people are doing to me.
- Version 1
- "you want fame, but look how destructive fame is, it really just kills you, you make your self esteem depend on your fans, and when they turn to hate you, you end up killing yourself"
- Answer
- Fame as a Western Essay Writer = fame as a South Korean Film Star SINCE WHEN?
Any kind of Korean shrink who has analysed me from a distance, get a job, like in a coffee bar! Even if it's just part time!
And a Catholic also doesn't equal a believer in Korean Konfucianism.
I'll also not kill myself about certain things in my past surfacing. Depending on what it is, I might make a grim face or a bright face, but it would not push me to suicide.
- Version 2
- "you are so toxic online, aren't you concerned it can hurt people?"
- Answer
- I'm not being toxic to sensitive people about sensitive things in their lives.
I don't think Putin or Bergoglio are the equivalent of a South Korean actress, I think they have lots of thicker skin. Perhaps they could even take my calculations of gematrias as very useful warnings. If not, they are the ultimate example of the Murphy law related to promotions. Or actually, a refutation of it, they would have been promoted to their level of incompetence way earlier, when Bergoglio took on Buenos Aires and Putin took on local politics in St. Petersburg. So do people at CMI who disagree on Neanderthals being pre-Flood (my thesis, they prefer calling them post-Babel) or on Babel being Göbekli Tepe (my thesis, they prefer part time promoting Babel being pre-Neanderthal, part time promoting Babel being the Ziggurat of Eridu, as per the theory of Doug Petrovich). If a certain James Bogle Esq. considers the publication of our correspondence about the King's non-veto on an abortion law as a breach of privacy, he has no sense of what a public and what a private topic are. Charles III is not a person in his private life, nor in mine. Abortion laws, where those of the Caudillo while he lived (Penal Code, I think, as in Italy) are far superior to those of Charles III, are also not a private topic of his life or mine. And whether Constitution trumps or doesn't trump moral content in legislation is A L S O not a private topic in the English lawyer's or the Swedish expat's and essayist's private life. If he pretends the private format of our debate primes over the public content of the topics, too bad, I disagree.
There may be a version 3. Two glasses of wine doesn't seem much but .... well, I think there are PLENTY of people on the RATP who can confirm I don't have a drivers licence or a car. Some of them speed up the bus when they see me at the bus station, they know me as a sponger. In other words, my levels of alcohol are strictly only relevant to Catholic moral theology about drunkenness, where I'm not past the limits, "when speech and mind is affected" being a venial sin, and usually not even that. They are not related to Catholic moral theology about prudence. Especially prudence related to getting behind a steering wheel or any other managing of heavy machinery. In fact, I usually only drink after my blogging is done, which is why I'm annoyed at inner city bans on selling beer past 9 PM, if I leave the cyber at 9:15 or 10 or sth.
No, I don't drink to get a slight buzz, I don't always get one, and am actually somewhat trying to avoid even that. I drink to get a pee, because of the calories which would otherwise wake me up at early AM hours and probably keep me awake to somewhat close to sunrise. Thanks to a 2/3 liter bottle of 4.7 %, yesterday evening, and it was my third beer, unusually enough, but not immediately after, I could even get to sleep after someone who called me a friend made an angry call about me so I could hear it. I didn't catch what the angry call was about, but if he arged I should be "excused" as an alcoholic, apart from being a non-friend by pushing me to eat to much, he's also an un-friend who deprives me of an income. You see, a week with 8.82 k page views from the US, 8.73 k from France, 7.59 k from Singapore, stats from yesterday, not yet counted the other countries, will on the one hand not give me one cent, since my blogs aren't monetised. But it very much will serve as an argument that a publisher need not give up his money for lost if he starts making books from my texts.
Not meaning that the well organised readership I have on the internet are the same persons as the potential buyers, at least not all of them. But the fact I can muster such an army of probably mostly hostile observers is an argument for people with somewhat better sense of moral compass, who disagree with them, to support me, including by buying my works if they were available in monetisable form, i e on paper. I'm keeping the online version free. A writer needs a certain fame in order to get book sales. It's not just about the ego. If I owned a bakery, I'd need customers around the adjacent blocks to know about it. Fortunately for bakers, God bless them, bread, specifically the baguette with its soft interior and crisp surface, as well as pastry (if you like jumbles, they are called "pain au raisin" in French, most prefer either croissant or chocolatine*, I seem to share Chesterton's taste for jumbles), and they serve coffee too, so, with 10 000 people living within five minutes' walk, there is arguably enough to go around for the three closest bakeries, since all of these things are very popular tastes. You don't get a majority around the block to boycott them. But if you think abortion should be banned, and Franco was great for banning abortion and freemasonry, and obviously, books being only slightly more expensive but bought way more long term than jumbles, I am very unlikely to have huge portion of these 10 000 as customers, so, I need to be known a bit further off to have an income.
There are other people than Korean internet fans and ex-fans that can be toxic and steal privacy.** By keeping me unknown, you are not protecting me from them. You are just providing people involved in psychiatry as representatives, adjacents, parts of adjacent associations, an opportunity to steal away my life about as efficiently as South Korean internauts. Or, a certain type of them. Because, if I actually settled for something less, like a part time job in a café, certain people would be very interested in keeping a lookout on the rest of my life to make sure I never again get close to getting known.***
People not totally unlike James Bogle may find it horrible I have in the past promoted Palmarians, and am at present promoting Conclavism. As if that were all I am doing. Young Earth Creationism and Catholicism both being true is a common theme and one which I have occasion to touch more often than who is the real Pope. A colleague of Bogle in the US, who is anonymised behind the online moniker "Introibo ad altare Dei 2", voiced such concerns in connection with a lady who formerly promoted Conclavism, actually participated in the conclave for Michael I, and who is, unlike me, not kept unknown.° People are warning about what could happen if we had two or three Papal claimants again. But we already have. At least three. All I'm doing is clearing that up, I'm not adding a fourth one on top of Michael II (whom I hold to be the true Pope), Odermatt (current Palkmarian claimant) or Bergoglio (current Novus Ordo claimant). The situation is not avoidable by suppressing indelicate informations about "unfortunate happenings" especially as no one is even close to suppressing very indelicate informations about the very unfortunate happenings in Vatican City back in 2013. A few months later, Bergoglio came out as Evolutionist.
There are two kinds of people who'll say "you belong to Copeland if you are Young Earth Creationist" ... apart from the fact that he's an Old Earth Creationist, like Cardinal Wiseman. One of them is the kind who'll invite Catholic Young Earth Creationists to join them. The other kind is the guys who cling to an urban legend of Young Earth Creationism never having been the Patristic reading. It was. Not the only Patristic reading, as you find Patristic interpretations about Adam's naming of the animals taking place from 12 midday to 3 PM, in parallel with Christ's time on the Cross, because Adam is a prophecy about Christ. But the only Patristic reading on that level, like taking Adam as Adam and Genesis as early history. And no, mytho-history was NOT a separate genre from historic books, Genesis and the Gospel of Luke are basically written the same way, with similar author intentions about the meaning. Namely second hand informations through credible intermediates, intention of being a history of events that occurred, as they occurred.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ash Wednesday
5.III.2025
PS, if he was "excusing me" from having written a certain thing, he was probably wrong. If the idea is "he can't have written Juste trois de mes blogs etc (which published some stats), he's lying here asleep" (asleep until he woke me, that is), he was wrong. The post was written beforehand and put to delayed publication. It was arguably published while I had a delicious Mardi Gras meal, celery with mayo, Italian ham, aforementioned beer./HGL
* And if you say "it's 'pain au chocolat'" ... get a part time job in a café, will you? And if it serves chocolatines, make sure it only serves tourists from the US and UK, please!
** The pictures from 23.V.2024 and 16.I.2025 are not my doing. Click here —> images des dégâts <— for a view. BUT, not while you are eating, drinking, driving a car, obviously, or if you have a heart condition.
*** For instance, there was a man a few years ago, who imagined to have identified me as the Antichrist. Jemand hält mich für den Antichrist
° He maybe considers any kind of writing about theology, even online, still falls under the provisions of "nihil obstat" + "imprimi potest" / "imprimatur" even if there is no unity about who should apply them, so, he considers it a kind of office comparable to that of a surgeon. Probably he has a standing nihil obstat from his father confessor, due to heavily leaning on theologians Ott and van der Pauw, and other 1950's manuals. His words about Theresa S. Benns, a Conclavist back when I was a Palmarian, compared her to a surgeon having forgot a scalpel inside a patient's body. Because obviously THE most delicate question for a Catholic is who is the Pope, right? I am probably in his views highly at fault for not boycotting Bergoglians, like people who think Bergoglio is the Pope, but I do enjoy Heschmeyer.
No comments:
Post a Comment